Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00679)

Jan 30 2003

Dear Friends:

Re God.

May I break in?

Looking at the question of God -- theosophically, can we not say:

1.	The God Idea is derived from the ABSOLUTE which antecedes
everything else ? Like SPACE it is everywhere and surrounds us all,
and, as far as we can imagine it links us all with the infinitudes of
origin as well as of present extensiveness ?

2.	Seizing on this, those who constituted themselves the priests and
arbiters for any group built up the image of a Personal or a Tribal
God whose chief function was to pardon evil acts and words.
Whimsically, As He wills? And then the priests set themselves up as
intercessors if the price paid was right ?

3.	I can find no reasonable way by which such an arbitrary entity or
force as defined in "personal Gods" may exist in a Universe of LAW.

4.	Since the time when the existence of any Personal God has been
challenged, why do these challenges and challengers continue to
live -- assuming the "God" is all powerful, and is often depicted as
vengeful ? Also, assuming that "life" in this world is an unmixed
benefit.


Best wishes,

Dallas

==================

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald S
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:25 PM
To: Theosophy
Subject: Re to Mauri


<<<Occurs to me that "Supreme/One God" might have been derived by way
of an intuitive knowing/feeling or hunch about the "Oneness" of Monad
(as in esoteric Theosophy), out of which "sense of knowing" (by way of
whatever
interpretive tendency) we humans might have created our various "One
God" religions, Monadic Theosophies, such as they are in their
exoteric/esoteric form ...>>>

I am not sure how a supreme God can come from Oness, but who knows?
Usually the single supreme God is a parental projection, but again,
who knows? As soon as this one supreme God has "children" then the
initial Oneness kind of collapses, doesn't it? Experientially, on the
first plane, the most spiritual plane, there is a vauge and undefined
sense of I slightly separated by a vague and undefined sense of Not-I.
Maybe this Not-I is God? Don't see how though, because it is not yet
defined -- definitions come on the lower planes.


<<<I suspect we all have our own karma, (coming through as
interpretive tendencies ...), to consider ... So if Bhakti Yoga is
seen as relevant enough on a feeling/intuitive level, then,
(obviously enough?), it might also seem relevant enough in terms of
one's interpretations of one's karmic scenario in question? That is,
I'm posing that question to the general
reader. But in spite of those various scenarios, influences, I
suspect that one might be free to think/speculate, as in:
But/"but"... ?
Speculatively,
Mauri>>>

Agreed. And I still find myself calling out to God when in trouble,
and talking to Him sometimes, etc. But I still tend to define God in
impersonal terms, such as Life, Truth, Love, and Principle (a holdover
from my Christian Science days). Everyone should try Bhakti and see if
it works for them. I did but it didn't.


CUT